Board Purpose (Last updated on 5 September 2010)This board is a part of Evidence for God from Science (G&S), a Christian website, which serves to provide a defence and persuasive case for Christianity as well as encouragement and instruction for Christian people and seekers.

Who is the message board intended for?This message board is publicly open to anyone who wishes to register and participate in discussions, however it is ultimately intended for a specific audience. It is intended to serve as a place for:

Sincere seekers to inquire and ask questions;

Christians to give and receive encouragement and instruction; and

Non-Christians who are willing to "walk a thin line" and reason sensitively and respectfully.

This board is not for those who have strongly made up their mind that Christ is "not" for them; who merely wish to put down, debate, and argue against essential Christian beliefs. As such, those who are Christian, have not made up their minds, or desire civilised discussions on Christianity are encouraged to join, while others who merely wish to attack and try to discredit Christianity are discouraged and will be heavily moderated.

Board HistoryG&S originally provided an open discussion board where Christians and non-Christians could debate and voice their arguments for and against Christianity. The board quickly degenerated into a hub for vocal non-Christians and a few minor Christians. This was far from the desired purpose of our board being a place of fruitful exchanges amongst Christians and seekers.

After thoughtful consideration, it was decided to limit participation in discussions to a certain group of people--Christians and those open to Christian beliefs. As of September 2010 the board is largely Christian and we now wish to relax the reigns a little. This means non-Christians can now debate Christian beliefs, however such members must keep discussions civil, show the utmost respect, sensitivity and grace, and be willing to walking away from an issue if it gets too heated.

Guidelines for debating against Christian beliefsThe following are some guidelines for members to follow who choose to debate against Christian beliefs:

Dialogue and debate with sensitivity, understanding you are participating within a Christian community.

Do not set out to try change the opinion of Christians as this immediately creates barriers and hostility.

If you receive hostility, or a caution from a moderator, be gracious enough to leave the associated discussion/s politely.

Do not criticise the way this board is moderated for Christians either through direct or indirect public comments.

If you vehemently disagree with Christian beliefs and constantly attack then know that you will be banned very quickly.

If these rules of engagement seem obnoxious to you, then this board probably is not for you. It is just best you leave now.

Any non-Christians who participate in discussions do so with an understanding moderators will be the judge of whether the line is crossed.

Be respectful and use good etiquette, and moderators will treat you the same without being quick to ban. That is, you can expect cautions will be issued if it is felt you are approaching the line; a warning to be issued when you have crossed the line (which may/may not involve a temporary ban); and a permanent ban if you persist.

Are we being unfair?Many have objected to our board purpose being "unfair" or "intolerant". Yet, such a person really shows their own unfairness or "intolerance" by not wanting to allow one Christian board out of the many on the Internet to function in accordance with its beliefs as a Christian board.

Imagine if a Christian person registered on a Jewish website. This Christian began posting how the Jews persecuted the early Christian Church, and pointing out any faults they thought existed within the Jewish faith. It becomes readily apparent that the administrator(s) of that board would have every right to ban that Christian and remove their posts. It is simply not a board for the Christian to propagate their beliefs nor tear into Judaism for it is a Jewish board.

Or imagine if a Muslim entered your home and hung up the Koran above your door (or if you are Muslim substitute someone taking down your Koran). Such a seemingly unacceptable action highlights the point that it is not always true that divergent faiths and beliefs should be given the same privileges, freedom, and level of acceptance everywhere. To think otherwise is to not respect another's personal space. So just like a Muslim would have no right to hang their Koran in your home without permission, simply because the home becomes "virtual" does not change this principle.

This board is a Christian home, and so while very open to sincere questions and sensitive debate and dialogue, it is "not" a place where others of differing beliefs can promote their opinions while throwing any argument and complaint they can find against Christianity. If you think this is still unfair, then you are quite welcome to find and join some of the many other message boards suitable to this on the Internet.

Hello.I am new. First thing; congratulation for your board. It looks extremely interesting.Before being part of it I would like to ask few questions to moderators about the purposesof the board and guidelines.

I accept that this is your home and I would like to avoid to be an unwanted guest.

Board Purpose wrote:This board is not for those who have strongly made up their mind that Christ is "not" for them; who merely wish to put down, debate, and argue against essential Christian beliefs. As such, those who are Christian, have not made up their minds, or desire civil discussions about Christianity are encouraged to join, while others who merely wish to attack and try to discredit Christianity are discouraged and will be heavily moderated.

Well I certainly have not made my mind about Christ, nor strongly or weakly. Not yet at least.On the contrary I have beliefs about science. According to many protestant churches (as well as Catholic church and Buddhists) I know that science facts are not essential Christian beliefs.I read that one of you (Canuckster1127) seems to support this view in his signature (quoting Agoustine)But of course this could be different from what you mean here.

So please, can you be more specific about which scientific facts are essential Christian beliefs, in your view?

To be clear I am not talking about science-based world-views such as "materialism", but aboutscience facts (e.g. "all evidences point to the fact that all lifeforms on Earth are related and share a common ancestor"). I am not implying that this claim is true, just that it is in the scope of science and can be scientifically discussed as any other scientific claim.I honestly see no religious implication of it.

The domain of this board is godandscience.org. While you have been explicit enough of the "god side", I think you have not be rather clear about the "science side".

You said that you will moderate "neo-Darwinian form of evolution".I have nothing against this decision, you are the masters in your home.Just I see a difference between one saying

"according to evolution there is no place for God in the physical world"

and one claiming

"we have no evidence from science of unphysical actions in physical world, though of course this does not prove that no supernatural being exists or acted".

Of course, both could be wrong, but I see no reason to prevent discussions about the second.But my view here is irrelevant. So what is your view?

Last edited by Salem on Mon May 26, 2008 3:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

In short, I don't believe we would say that any scientific facts or approaches are necessary for Christian Belief. We believe that God is the source of all truth. We expect the Bible as revealed truth from God is going to be in accordance with natural truth which is revealed within the creation.

The conflicts, where they exist aren't between the Bible or Nature. Where conflict can enter in is through Theology which is man's interpretation of the Bible and through Science which is a man made method for approaching the creation and seeking to understand it.

All that is required for salvation for Man is revealed through the Bible. Therefore, science would not enter into the equation. There are no scienctific beliefs that are required or necessarily excluded.

Evolution is an issue for many in Christian movements however, the world evolution spans a great deal of use in our language and needs to be carefully defined in order to avoid confusion. Evolution in the more narrow sense as science, is not necessarily in conflict with Christian belief and doctrine. Evolution as a science is pretty well established to be at work as a fact in biological science. It is in fact, one of the better established scientific facts that we have and it is the basis for a great deal of study and the foundation for a great deal of knowledge and medical research and science.

However, evolution has been take in many regards beyond science and has been a launching point for a great many things that are not purely science. Where it has been extended out beyond a science into a philosophy it has been used to support a system of beliefs that are more properly called materialism or positivism which is used as a foundation to assert that God does not exist and that no evidence for God exists within the universe. This ceases to be science in that it is asserting a negative which is outside of the ability of science by definition to prove or disprove.

We on this board as established by Rich Deem who is the host and those of us who assist voluntarily as moderators, support the general purpose of this board which is to show that Christianity and Science are not incompatable. We do not base our faith upon science, but we expect that science will confirm the basic facts that are in the Bible which are asserted about the natural world in which we live. We look to that by way of confirmation, not the basis of our faith.

That said, there is still room for disagreement on may issues. This site is primarily Old Earth creationist. Speaking for myelf, I hold to the same basic position but I don't have a greast a grounding in science as Rich, for whom I have a great deal of respect. I'm expanding in this area as I'm completing a Master of Science Degree in Organizational Leadership which is a science based degree in the area of Psychology. What we're primarily seeking to establish here is a site where Christians and sincere seekers can interact and try to understand better how science and Christianity are not incompatable. Those who disagree with this position appear to be those who are on the extremes of both Christianity in terms of the positions of Young Earth Creationism which in some extreme forms appears to be a form of heresy at times to many of us. That doesn't mean we assert that all Young Earth creationists are heretics or that some forms of Young Earth Creationism are not tenable and can't be held in good conscience.

Likewise, as already mentioned, we also believe that materialism or positivism as a foundation for atheism is not a tenable position and is in basic opposition to the God of the Bible. Therefore as moderators we seek to enforce this board purpose and the related discussion guidelines. Those with their minds made up who are here to argue and debate for no purpose but to recruit for their own position are not welcome. Other sites exist for that purpose and they are welcome to go there. Our purpose is to constructively dialogue with Christians who wrestle with these issues or with seekers who have not yet come to Christ but may be wrestling with the idea that Christianity requires a rejection of science or embracing of ignorance of issues in this area. We don't believe that is necessary and is in fact a misreprentation of Christianity.

Other moderators please feel free to chime in and correct me if you believe I've overstated or missed anything.

Regards,

Bart

Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender

I am open to the idea of some sort of deity, but I am a science teacher, and is therefore very interested in the possibility of scientific/logical proof or disproval of gods existance. This is why I was quite excited to find your page with counterarguments to scientifc claims of proofs against god. However I see discrepancies etc. with some of the arguments Rich uses.

Is this the correct place to discuss the science and logic in his arguments? Whether or not scientific theories can or cannot prove or disprove gods existance, doesn't change the basic idea of god being possible despite science and logic. So I am not trying to threaten the existence of god, merely trying to keep the science used in conjunction with religion as 'scientific' as possible.

Maybe I am bot the most probable candidate for conversion, but on the other hand, not allowing challenge of ones scientifically based arguments, reduces the their credibilty quite a lot!

I am open to the idea of some sort of deity, but I am a science teacher, and is therefore very interested in the possibility of scientific/logical proof or disproval of gods existance. This is why I was quite excited to find your page with counterarguments to scientifc claims of proofs against god. However I see discrepancies etc. with some of the arguments Rich uses.

Is this the correct place to discuss the science and logic in his arguments? Whether or not scientific theories can or cannot prove or disprove gods existance, doesn't change the basic idea of god being possible despite science and logic. So I am not trying to threaten the existence of god, merely trying to keep the science used in conjunction with religion as 'scientific' as possible.

Maybe I am bot the most probable candidate for conversion, but on the other hand, not allowing challenge of ones scientifically based arguments, reduces the their credibilty quite a lot!

Hi Peter and thank you for this post. I don't believe there's an issue with you raising such questions. To be quite honest though, at least from my side, I am not in any way equipped to deal with the scientific arguments to such level of detail. As far as Rich is concerned, like I said in the other post, I hope he does get to respond but I sincerely doubt he will even see the posts.

Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

I am open to the idea of some sort of deity, but I am a science teacher, and is therefore very interested in the possibility of scientific/logical proof or disproval of gods existance. This is why I was quite excited to find your page with counterarguments to scientifc claims of proofs against god. However I see discrepancies etc. with some of the arguments Rich uses.

Is this the correct place to discuss the science and logic in his arguments? Whether or not scientific theories can or cannot prove or disprove gods existance, doesn't change the basic idea of god being possible despite science and logic. So I am not trying to threaten the existence of god, merely trying to keep the science used in conjunction with religion as 'scientific' as possible.

Maybe I am bot the most probable candidate for conversion, but on the other hand, not allowing challenge of ones scientifically based arguments, reduces the their credibilty quite a lot!

Since they are Rich's arguments, if you are really interested in getting a response, then you should contact Rich directly. If you are more interested in debating your view on reality against that of Theism, then this Christian board is probably not the best place to do it. Consider this board as an online Christian church more than a symposium for debate. It is only intended for specific types of people: Christians and those open to Christianity.

While I would like to go about thanking you first for what this website helped me out with relation to various scientific questions I was deeply bothered by, I must ask few questions regarding if the following types of topics are permissible for this board. Also, I apologize if I accidentally posted this in the wrong spot- I couldn't find anywhere else to post my questions.

First of all, I have a hypothesis of sorts that is currently unfinished that I believe mathematically proves the relevancy of various parables written in the bible, using a series of simple geometric measurements, and arithmetic that illustrates "fruitless" actions in the form of "sort of singularities" caused by merging lines. This is certainly relevant to both subjects of God and Science, but I'm unable to finalize it currently due to a stomach disorder of mine(That I've had for years, and has been acting up lately) that makes it extremely difficult for me to think and stay awake. I have a flawed "beta model" of the equation from where I forgot to actually calculate part of it, but nonetheless, I think the concept is relevant, albeit unfinished.

Also, as a side question, would it be acceptable if I were to write a topic criticizing the United Nations in the Politics subforum here, or would that be too much?

In addition, I'm a bit unused to this board's interface and overall structure, so please forgive me if I accidentally posted another topic instead of a reply.

Since it is this forum's interest to merge GOD and SCIENCE it is my INTEREST and Interested is what "I AM"!Since this thing/phenomena labelled the INTERNET turned up we are but little fish in the basket of creations.Six days a week and one for the SABBATH some two thousand years beyond birth of Jesus and his short life.Seven creative days, fossil records, God of the GAPS, fine tuning, anthropic principles you named + said it.

That is in dealing with the eschatology of the end times, millerites to millennialism such _As Denton puts it,"Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin." enough said.

P.S. Now I need an orientation... Could someone pray that THE HOLY SPIRIT of Christ leads, guides, and directs me into my mission here.. Again ALLELUIA! I love all you that are my brother's and sisters IN CHRIST (Ephesians 3:15)...

I am open to the idea of some sort of deity, but I am a science teacher, and is therefore very interested in the possibility of scientific/logical proof or disproval of gods existance. This is why I was quite excited to find your page with counterarguments to scientifc claims of proofs against god. However I see discrepancies etc. with some of the arguments Rich uses.It is only intended for specific types of people: Christians and those open to Christianity.......Consider this board as an online Christian church more than a symposium for debate. It is only intended for specific types of people: Christians and those open to Christianity.

I'm glad I took the time to read this before wasting my time. The term "God and Science" along with the debates I've read so far make this more of an open forum where the scientific validity of proofs, both pro and con, can be debated.

If the ultimate end is in the conversion to Christianity, then as a Jew, I cannot partake, as the issue in the minds of the debaters is closed.

I actually embrace the idea of ID but not on a religious footing. I prefers the idea of Super aliens who posses the knowledge and power to accomplish such things as Terra forming and genetic engineering, howbeit with a knowledge of millions of years and have also conquered the drive to wage violence against other life forms, as well as their own. Without this resistance to violence in any form, they would have destroyed themselves with super technology which yields super power and become extinct.

We are faced with such a choice today because fusion power, offers the possibility to destroy not only cites but the whole planet. A terrorist with such a weapon would not hesitate to use it, rendering us all extinct and part of the fossil record.

We have conquered fission power and, luckily, not destroyed ourselves( with the exception of a couple of cities and a few hundred thousand people) but the day isn't over yet and those weapons still exist.

So, without further ado, If no one can offer me a reason to stay that allows my Jewish religion to stay intact, I have to be traveling along and find another forum where such discussion is for the benefit of all religions and non-religious folk.

John Ray

"Without anyone to challenge your ideas, how could you possibly be wrong?" ~John Ray May 2, 2010